Sumit Puri v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12147 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -86 Year- 2016 Thana -PIPRAKOTHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Sumit Puri S/o Brijmohan Puri, R/o Kishunpur, P.O.- Jivdhara, P.S.- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Santosh Kumar Giri, S/o Late Sunil Giri, R/o Village- Balua Vrita, P.S.- Ramgarwa, District-East Champaran.

3. Central Beareo of Investigation through the Superintendent of Police, Patna C.B.I. Office Patna.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SC, CBI For the informant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For the State : Smt. Sahin Begam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State, the learned Standing counsel for the C.B.I. as also the learned counsel for the Informant. The petitioner wants to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by order dated 18.04.2017 passed in Cr Misc. No. 10630 of 2017, on the ground that the petitioner is suffering in custody since 11.07.2016, best efforts were taken to save the wife but in vain, the D.S.P. after supervision has found that the deceased burnt herself due to some petty dispute, the investigation has not been completed by the C.B.I. till now and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12147 of 2018 (6) dt.20-06-2018 2/2 without any fault the petitioner is in custody and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration.

The learned Standing counsel for the C.B.I. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for bail by submitting that during investigation the witnesses have supported the allegation and the deceased before her death has stated that she was burnt by the petitioner and other in-laws. In the facts and circumstances stated above, at present finding no good ground for reconsideration of prayer for bail, again prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016 pending in the court of C.J.M. East Champaran, Motihari. However, if the investigation is not completed by the C.B.I. within two months the petitioner may be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T